Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1996; 1997(2)CTC235; JT1997(2)SC449; (1997)2MLJ36(SC); 1997(2)SCALE40; (1997)10SCC209; [1997]1SCR856a
1. Delay condoned.2. This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras, made on May 7, 1996 in CRP No. 46/96. Admittedly, the petitioner's mother had filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 64, CPC to set aside the execution of sale of two items of properties. The petition ultimately came to be dismissed and became final. After her demise, the petitioner filed application under Section 47 of the CPC contending that the property could not be brought to sale for several reasons. In the High Court, one of the grounds raised was that the properties were sold for a grossly inadequate price and sale of both the properties was excessive execution. It was stated that the decree was only for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- while two properties valuing Rs. 40,000/- and another Rs. 1,00,000/- have been brought to sale and, therefore, they are in excess of the decree in execution. The High Court has negatived the contention on the ground that since the title of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3760; JT1997(2)SC527; (1998)118PLR709; 1997(2)SCALE58; (1997)9SCC543; [1997]1SCR840
1. This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, made on September 18, 1996 in Second Appeal No. 215 of 1987. Admittedly, both the petitioner and the respondents had filed Civil Suits claiming damages against each other. The petitioner's suit was dismissed and the respondents' suit was also dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal filed by the respondents, it was allowed and was decreed for recovery of Rs. 24,875/-. The petitioner filed second appeal against the decree which was admitted. However, the petitioner did not carry the matter in second appeal against his suit for damages and was content with filing an appeal against the decree of damages granted against him. The High Court recording the findings has held thus:Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid factual as well as legal proposition, it can safely be said that where two connected suits have been tried together and the findings recorded in one of the suit have become final in absence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC961; JT1997(2)SC241; 1997(1)SCALE695; (1997)10SCC339
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave is in challenge of an order of the High Court of Patrsa dated 8.5.1994 by which a Division Bench has refused to modify an earlier order dated 2.2.1993. Appellants herein are the Bihar State Housing Board, its Managing Director and its Executive Engineer at Harun-Ranchi.2. Bihar State Housing Board (For short 'the Housing Board') put up fiats under a housing scheme. As per the allotment order dated 9.12.1983, a. flat bearing No. H-1/200 was allotted to the respondent at a tentative cost of Rs. 85,400/-. The respondent was to pay a sum of Rs. 17,230/- as the initial payment. As the respondent had paid an advance of Rs. 6,500/- he was permitted to deduct it from the initial payment and thus he was to pay Rs. 10,730/- in a lump within thirty days from the date of allotment order. But respondent paid that amount only in 1987 presumably with interest (as he paid an amount of Rs. 17,541/-) As per clause 6 of the allotment order the allottee was to pay the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC951; JT1997(2)SC337; (1997)ILLJ838SC; 1997(1)SCALE658; (1997)3SCC27; [1997]1SCR791
ORDERJ.S. Verma , J.1. The main point for decision in this writ petition and the connected matters is the constitutional validity of Rule 26 of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Service Rules, 1967 (for short 'Rules') as amended on May 19, 1989. A brief background of this challenge is necessary to indicate the narrow compass in which the controversy now survives.2. The Executive and Ministerial Class III services were merged by notification dated December 4, 1980 and the seniority in the integrated cadre was to be reckoned on the basis of their placement in the cadre. A writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court to challenge this act of merger of the Executive and Ministerial branches as well as Rule 26 of the said Rules which provided for determination of the seniority on merger of the two branches. The High Court by its judgment dated May 13, 1982 rejected the challenge to the merger of the Executive and Ministerial branches but it struck down Rule 26 as invalid. The decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1307; JT1997(2)SC528; (1997)2MLJ107(SC); 1997(2)SCALE59; (1997)9SCC688; [1997]1SCR846; 1997(1)LC808(SC)
1. This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, made in C.R.P. No. 1650/96 on July 9, 1996:2. Admittedly, the respondents filed O.S. No. 158/94, in the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund. On grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court. Accordingly, after making necessary amendment to the plaint the respondents represented the suit, which came to be numbered as O. S. No. 10/91, in Civil Court at Dharwad. The petitioners filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10, C. P. C. for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the plaint was materially altered, without seeking permission for amendment of the plaint as required under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. The High Court dismissed the petition.3. It is contended by Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that since the petition had been filed with amended averments in the plaint, necessarily it must be treated to be a fresh p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1898; JT1997(2)SC523; (1997)IILLJ386SC; 1997(2)SCALE44; (1997)10SCC178; [1997]1SCR865; 1997(1)LC492(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Karnataka High Court, made on 18-4-1996 in C.R.P. Nos. 934/93 and 2362/93 and the order dated 5-8-1996 in C. P. Nos. 365 and 366 of 1996.4. The admitted position is that the respondent was suspended from service on 18-3-1989. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the order of removal was passed. A petition was filed by the respondent against the said order before the Tribunal constituted under Karnataka Education Act, 1983, The Tribunal on finding that the respondent was not paid the subsistence allowance, set aside the order of termination and remitted the matter for fresh enquiry. In revision, the High Court stayed the domestic enquiry and the civil petition was allowed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.5. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of this matter. Rules 12(3) and 12(4) of the Rules framed under Karnataka Private Educational Insti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(2)SC518; (1997)2MLJ106(SC); (1997)10SCC193; [1997]1SCR862
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated January 10, 1997 passed by the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 9/ 97. It is not in dispute that while the appeal was pending an application under Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC was filed for recording the compromise. The appellate Court refused to record the compromise and on revision, it was dismissed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.3. The compromise memo annexed as Annexure A at page 21 of the paper book records that 'We, the undersigned Shri Harshan A. Mehta, Director of H. Choksey & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Jayavantraj Punamiya, Director of M/s. Sundeep Plastics Pvt. Ltd. do hereby appoint Shri Mohanlal S. Mehta to sell 2 galas being No. D/8 and AB/14, situate at Nandanvan Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. at Thane.' The High Court recorded the finding that it being a compromise contingent upon the parties appointing Shri Mohanlal S. Mehta as a mediator, it cannot be reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2360; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)660; 1998(4)ALLMR(SC)78; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)505; 1998CriLJ3635; JT1997(2)SC232; (1997)10SCC600; [1997]1SCR830
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Appellant was a Sub-Registrar in the Registration Department under Maharashtra Government. The Special Judge at Latur convicted him under Section 161, IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) for receiving a sum of Rs. 60/- as illegal gratification from one Shesherao Patil (PW-1). Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- on each count. High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.2. The official duties of the Sub-Registrar included, among other things, receiving applications for certified copies of registered documents and issuance of such copies. Appellant was Sub-Registrar of Nilanga Sub- Registry Office. PW-1 Shesherao Patil, an employee of postal department, was in need of certified copies of three sale deeds. When he approached the appellant he was told to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1407; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)532; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)478; 1997CriLJ1906; 1997(1)Crimes142(SC); JT1997(2)SC226; 1997(1)SCALE692; (1997)10SCC587
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated August 10, 1984 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 106 DB of 1984, acquitting the accused-respondent Mewa Singh of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms ACt; the appellant being the State of Haryana.2. The victim of the crime was one Ram Kumar, said to have been killed by a pistol shot fired by Mewa Singh respondent. The cause of the crime was that the deceased had a first paternal cousin Tara Chand whose wife Smt. Om Devi, about six months prior to the occurrence was said t6 have developed illicit connections with the accused-respondent. The deceased Ram Kumar as well as his brothers Nurse, P.W. 6 and Ved Parkash, P.W. 7 and other members of the family as also Tara Chand and other members of his family objected to this connection and had time and again warned the accused-respondent from maintaining it and visiting the hous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1654; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)470; 1997(1)ALT(Cri)644; 1997(2)BLJR1662; 1997CriLJ1150; 1997(1)Crimes121(SC); JT1997(2)SC149; 1997(1)SCALE626; (1997)3SCC747; [1997]1SCR764
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had upheld the acquittal of all the accused-respondents of charges under Sections 147 302/149 436/149 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC') arid under Section 4(iv), (x) and Section 5 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The aforesaid charges were framed pursuant to an occurrence which had taken place in village Kafalta Malla in district Bilaspur in the State of U. P. wherein 14 persons were killed and 7 injured. All the 32 accused-respondents were acquitted by the Sessions Judge and, in appeal, the acquittal of all of them was upheld except that of accused Kishan Singh, respondent No. 20 and Jeet Singh, respondent No. 14. who were convicted by the High Court under Section 325/34, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The occurrence in question took place on 9th May, 1980. The complainant's side is Dom by caste. It was not d...
Tag this Judgment!